Stirling's "DRAKA", Norman's "GOR"
Jerome Bigge
Why do these two authors' books "disturb" so many people?
-
Jerome Bigge (jbi...@novagate.com) NRA Life Member
Author of the "WARLADY" series of SF fantasy novels.
And of the "alternative history" WARTIME series where
history was just a little bit "different" from our own!
Download them all at http://www.novagate.com/~jbigge
Government is more often the "problem", not the "solution"...
Dan Goodman
In article <6n1p7p$407$4...@205.138.137.39>,
Jerome Bigge <jbi...@novagate.com> wrote:
>
>Why do these two authors' books "disturb" so many people?
With John Norman, there's a simple answer:
1) he's apparently convinced that everyone really shares his particular
sexual tastes. If they say they don't, it's because they're lying -- to
themselves and/or to the rest of the world.
2) He's wrong.
3) What he considers erotic, many people consider abhorrent.
My own reaction to Norman's work is boredom.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Mark Jones
Jerome Bigge wrote:
> Why do these two authors' books "disturb" so many people?
Well, I only read a couple or three GOR novels, so I may not be an
expert. In my case, they didn't "disturb" me at all. I just found them
repetitive and silly.
As for the Draka novels, the reason is simple: I found them
disturbing because the villains were so believable. I had trouble
accepting someo of the background--I found their unerring ability to
succeed and the Alliance's unerring ability to dither around til too
late implausible--but the characters and the culture were all too easy
to believe in. The monsters were human beings doing horrible things to
human beings for reasons they found perfectly justified. It was largely
the matter-of-fact approach to the butchery that made it so horrific.
It didn't help that they weren't doing anything that hasn't been done in
the real world, nor even necessarily in a bigger way than in the real
world. But after so many, many novels and movies about Evil Nazis (tm),
the horrors of that regime have become...I don't know, almost comic-book
like. The Draka, on the other hand, were new. Their villainy, while
perhaps no more horrific, was _different_. The familiarity of Evil Nazi
(tm) wasn't there to take the edge off of the cruelty.
And, of course, they _won_, unlike the Nazis.
--
Mark Jones
Leigh Kimmel
In article <6n1p7p$407$4...@205.138.137.39>
jbi...@novagate.com (Jerome Bigge) writes:
>
> Why do these two authors' books "disturb" so many people?
Gor -- beyond it's being incompetently written and the obvious sexism,
if the speculations are true that he was actually writing up his BDSM
fantasies, he failed to make any distinction between consenting adults
playing such a scenario as part of a scene vs. a genuinely
non-consentual situation.
Draka -- at least for me, this was my first experience of
three-dimensional evil characters, as opposed to the usual stock
nasties that populated most of the books I'd read before that. These
people did loathesome things and could take active pleasure in cruelty,
yet they could also be very gentle and caring to their own and valued
art and beauty and the good things in life even as they took those
things away from those they regarded as inferior. And their society was
realized in such *detail*. Of course now I see lots of ways it could've
been done better, but when I first read the series, it was
overwhelming.
"I have a right to be blind sometimes... I really don't see the
signal!"
-- Admiral Lord Nelson
Leigh Kimmel -- writer, artist and historian
kim...@siu.edu http://members.tripod.com/~kimmel/lhkwebpage.html
Listowner of Virtual Selyn, the Sime~Gen mailing list,
sime...@siu.edu
Ask me how to order the new Sime~Gen novel
Richard Kenan
Jerome Bigge (jbi...@novagate.com) wrote:
: Why do these two authors' books "disturb" so many people?
Norman doesn't so much disturb people, from what I've seen, as he
just bores and disappoints them. The novels aren't particularly
well written, are repetitive, and frankly, I rather prefer to see
more out of a SF novel than BDSM fantasies.
Stirling's Draka novels are disturbing for a variety of reasons.
On the one hand, the characters are generally quite believable,
and most Americans prefer to believe that evil characters are, by
nature, also unlikable. This is not true of the Draka.
Also, many people take the believably written characters, and try
to trasnpose them to the timeline itself. While it's perfectly
plausible for a culture that is, by modern American standards, as
evil as the Draka, to exist in a modern world, it is not, in the
opinions of a great many people, even possible for that culture
to get there the way the Draka did.
Just me.
--
Richard Kenan
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!eefacdk
Internet: eef...@prism.gatech.edu
D E Siegel
kim...@siu.edu (Leigh Kimmel)
>jbi...@novagate.com (Jerome Bigge) writes:
>
>
>>
>> Why do these two authors' books "disturb" so many people?
>
>
>Gor -- beyond it's being incompetently written and the obvious sexism,
>if the speculations are true that he was actually writing up his BDSM
>fantasies, he failed to make any distinction between consenting adults
>playing such a scenario as part of a scene vs. a genuinely
>non-consentual situation.
Since he also wrote at lease one non-fiction book explaining just how to use
such fantasies to have a "more fulfilling" sex life, I think that this
"speculation" is on pretty firm ground.
OTOH, writing *fantasies* of situations involving non-consent (and Gor *was*
after all, a fantasy) is not the same as advocating such conduct in real life.
AFAIK none of his writings include such advocacy.
-David E. Siegel
Sie...@ACM.ORG
Jerome Bigge
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 03:45:26 GMT, dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>In article <6n1p7p$407$4...@205.138.137.39>,
>Jerome Bigge <jbi...@novagate.com> wrote:
>>
>>Why do these two authors' books "disturb" so many people?
>
>With John Norman, there's a simple answer:
>1) he's apparently convinced that everyone really shares his particular
>sexual tastes. If they say they don't, it's because they're lying -- to
>themselves and/or to the rest of the world.
There is a sub culture of SM that perhaps the novels appeal to. There
is a newsgroup dedicated to the novels. He did have a lot of fans when
he was writing books. I do have the entire series of "GOR" novels, al-
though the quality of writing in my opinion is falling off towards the end.
The concept of enslaving women for sex goes back a long ways in
history. I use it in my own "WARLADY" series, although it does not
play anywhere as "large" a role in my books as it does in Norman's.
>2) He's wrong.
In the sense that only a small minority of women would want to be
slave girls. I'm really doubtful however that the stories are anything
more than fantasies of a certain sort. As I've said, there is a sub culture
of SM where these sort of things are discussed, and perhaps practiced.
>
>3) What he considers erotic, many people consider abhorrent.
>
>My own reaction to Norman's work is boredom.
The series starts sliding downhead towards the head. The last few
books weren't very good. Either the concept has been milked dry
or the author just got tired of writing them... On the other hand I
understand from reading the "GOR" newsgroup that John Norman
is writing another book. I believe it is called "Witness of Gor".
Ever read S.M. Stirling's "DRAKA" series?
Jerome Bigge
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 05:39:03 GMT, Mark Jones <sin...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>
>Jerome Bigge wrote:
>
>> Why do these two authors' books "disturb" so many people?
>
> Well, I only read a couple or three GOR novels, so I may not be an
>expert. In my case, they didn't "disturb" me at all. I just found them
>repetitive and silly.
The first five or so weren't bad, then the series starts to slide from there.
I found the ones written from a feminine viewpoint especially "poor".
Norman's female characters with the except of Ms. Cardwell were
boring reads.
> As for the Draka novels, the reason is simple: I found them
>disturbing because the villains were so believable. I had trouble
>accepting someo of the background--I found their unerring ability to
>succeed and the Alliance's unerring ability to dither around til too
>late implausible--but the characters and the culture were all too easy
>to believe in. The monsters were human beings doing horrible things to
>human beings for reasons they found perfectly justified. It was largely
>the matter-of-fact approach to the butchery that made it so horrific.
I found the Draka very "believable". On the other hand the Alliance
for Democracy was quite obviously our own America with liberals in
firm control of everything. Facing a society that reminds me a lot too
of Nazi Germany, but much better run by truly "competent" people.
I didn't see the Draka as "monsters", just human being much like
us, but raised in a culture where they were taught from birth that they
were the "masters". Not that much different in actual truth from what I
suspect was probably taught the children of white plantation owners
in the South prior to the Civil War. The major difference being that the
Draka seemed to have their own "house" more in order than did those
of the South. The South in OTL neglected the necessary technological
development that would have been necessary to "win" the Civil War. The
Draka on the other hand didn't. They also seemed to be much more focused
upon the fact that everyone who was not a "Draka" was automatically "enemy".
>It didn't help that they weren't doing anything that hasn't been done in
>the real world, nor even necessarily in a bigger way than in the real
>world. But after so many, many novels and movies about Evil Nazis (tm),
>the horrors of that regime have become...I don't know, almost comic-book
>like. The Draka, on the other hand, were new. Their villainy, while
>perhaps no more horrific, was _different_. The familiarity of Evil Nazi
>(tm) wasn't there to take the edge off of the cruelty.
>
>And, of course, they _won_, unlike the Nazis.
They won because the Alliance was incompetent. The Alliance was
Bill Clinton's (Hillary's) America writ large. A society where liberalism
had taken over. Lots of gun control. (Mentioned in THE STONE DOGS)
So lets change things a bit... Give the Alliance better leadership (someone
like Patton survives WW2, becomes President). The OSS continues in the
same operational vein it did during WW2. The Alliance starts air dropping
all sorts of small, concealable revolvers into the Domination. Yes, for a while
the Security Directorate would be able to stay on top of things, but numbers
are against them. Remember the Domination is surrounded upon all sides
by water. The US (in OTL) had an excellent fleet of submarines, and ample
air craft. How many cheap .38 snubbies could one B-36 carry? Even if the
Draka can slaughter rebellious serfs, there aren't enough Draka to control
the entire Eurasian land mass. And why should the Janisaries remain loyal?
You get a rebellion started anywhere, you pump in guns, then better guns.
Copy the Russian PPsh 41 (the best SMG of WW2), start dropping in those
to the serfs. OK, the Draka are going be better shots by far, and the serfs
are going to die perhaps a dozen or so for every Draka, but there are a lot
of serfs, and not that many Draka. Stirling gives total Draka military forces
for the Draka themselves at 4,200,000 (UNDER THE YOKE). Heck, Nazi
Germany was able to get 10 million into uniform, Russia twice that, the US
13 million. I'm not sure about the Japanese, but I'd guess 10 million there.
The Draka are "tough", but there aren't that MANY of them. They are a lot
like the Warriors and Warrioresses in my "WARLADY" and "WARTIME"
novels. Tough, well trained fighters, good tactically, but few in numbers.
It is interesting to note that Afghanistan gave the Draka a real hard time
in Stirling's novels. In OTL they gave the Russians a real hard time too.
Why? Because they were a society where every young man as a part
of growing up was expected to be able to use a rifle effectively. Just as
what was expected right here in the US a couple of centuries ago... The
same standard that the Draka set for themselves... I suspect that's one
reason I so enjoyed the Draka novels. Sort of like going "home" again.
There being a large number of parallels between my books and those
of Mr. Stirling (he is a much better writer, however). Different settings, but
there are a lot of similarities. The major difference being of course that
my societies aren't based upon the massive use of slaves, whereas in
Stirling's they are. There are however some chilling parallels, especially
as my "WARTIME" series is working out with the development of a social
order where only the Warriors and Warrioresses will have political power.
Graydon
In article <6n3q6b$63j$1...@205.138.137.34>,
Jerome Bigge <jbi...@novagate.com> wrote:
>air craft. How many cheap .38 snubbies could one B-36 carry? Even if the
Doesn't much matter if the response is to shoot that bomber down over the
water, now is it? The Draka put in really good air defenses.
>It is interesting to note that Afghanistan gave the Draka a real hard time
>in Stirling's novels. In OTL they gave the Russians a real hard time too.
The Draka had a hard time becuase they were conquering Afghanistan at a
just post Great War tech level, and had serious trouble _finding_ all the
Afghanis who wouldn't submit. Not analagous to the Russians at all.
--
goo...@interlog.com | "However many ways there may be of being alive, it
--> mail to Graydon | is certain that there are vastly more ways of being
dead." - Richard Dawkins, :The Blind Watchmaker:
Keith Morrison
Jerome Bigge wrote:
>
> Why do these two authors' books "disturb" so many people?
Stirling: His Draka, however unrealistic, have a certain appeal
that frightens people. These characters are more than
cardboard villains but they are human and as such can
be understood. Go ahead, tell me that if you were a
Draka Citizen you wouldn't enjoy it. Just on the sex
front, if you don't like submissive slave at your beck
and call, you've got women who are you equals and are
just as kinky as you are (see _Drakon_).
Norman: Simple porn masquerading as SF/Fantasy. It started off
not that bad but the S&M started taking over and, quite
frankly, it's boring. It's like going to a strip club.
The first time it's exciting and interesting. The second
time you start wishing the drinks weren't so expensive.
By the third time you're wondering if you can catch the
the late showing of a movie at the theatre down the street.
--
Keith Morrison
kei...@polarnet.ca
Coyu
>From: Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca>
>Date: Sat, Jun 27, 1998 23:23 EDT
>Go ahead, tell me that if you were a
>Draka Citizen you wouldn't enjoy it.
Born to it? I couldn't be, for one thing. If I had that prenatal
race-change - perhaps. But I remember feeling very strongly
about injustice at the age of 2... enough to make me wonder
if that sense might not be hard-wired.
If, by some bizarre twist of fate, I were adopted as a Metic,
I think I'd go postal in short order - I'd need _multiple_ hostages to
fortune to bar that, and I'd still probably go nuts.
>you've got women who are you equals and are
>just as kinky as you are (see _Drakon_).
This differs from modern America how? ;-)
JoatSimeon
>jbigge
>On the other hand the Alliance
for Democracy was quite obviously our own America with liberals in firm control
of everything.
-- more like 1950's Eisenhower types in control of everything, really -- sort
of a Norman Rockwell authoritarianism.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>graydon
>>It is interesting to note that Afghanistan gave the Draka a real hard time
>in Stirling's novels. In OTL they gave the Russians a real hard time too.
-- Afghanistan gives _everyone_ a hard time. Alexander the Great spent more
than half his campaigning lifetime there.
-- S.M. Stirling
Graydon
In article <199806280401...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Coyu <co...@aol.com> wrote:
>>From: Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca>
>>you've got women who are you equals and are
>>just as kinky as you are (see _Drakon_).
>
>This differs from modern America how? ;-)
No cases of libido mismatch; all drakensis are as horny as teenaged boys
all the time. (well, presumably not if severly injured or something.)
Tamela R. Germano
In article <199806280507...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
The day the U.S.S.R. invaded, er assisted local socialists in
Afghanistan I told a friend: "If the British Empire backed away from
there, these guys will really screw up". They did. I get to be right on
things like this about once every ten years.
Dino in Reno
JoatSimeon
>tamela
>The day the U.S.S.R. invaded, er assisted local socialists in Afghanistan I
told a friend: "If the British Empire backed away from
there, these guys will really screw up". They did. I get to be right on things
like this about once every ten years.
-- though to be fair, the guerilla victory required extensive Western
assistance and the internal collapse of the USSR.
OTOH, anyone with half a brain could have _predicted_ the Western assistance --
it was an invitation to Vietnam-in-reverse -- and that the effects on the
Soviet system would be unfortunate.
Fortunately for us, under Breshnev the USSR had effectly been self-lobotomized.
Stalin would have acted very differently, or even Khruschev.
-- S.M. Stirling
Soundcage
>They won because the Alliance was incompetent. The Alliance was
>Bill Clinton's (Hillary's) America writ large. A society where liberalism
>had taken over. Lots of gun control. (Mentioned in THE STONE DOGS)
I can't keep quiet on this one. I'm amazed that anyone would even remotely
consider Bill Clinton a liberal. He and his Republicrat cronies have been
nothing if not a cheering squad for big business. Liberal indeed! Under his
"liberal" policies, the poor and middle class are getting screwed without the
Vaseline (but that's nothing new, this IS America after all).
If Bill Clinton is a liberal then I shudder to think what's considered
conservative.
To e-mail: remove NOSPAM
ICQ users: My ICQ number is 8561677
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
Soundcage wrote:
>
> In article <6n3q6b$63j$1...@205.138.137.34>, jbi...@novagate.com (Jerome Bigge) wrote:
>
> >Bill Clinton's (Hillary's) America writ large. A society where liberalism
> >had taken over. Lots of gun control. (Mentioned in THE STONE DOGS)
>
> consider Bill Clinton a liberal. He and his Republicrat cronies have been
> nothing if not a cheering squad for big business. Liberal indeed! Under his
> "liberal" policies, the poor and middle class are getting screwed without the
> Vaseline (but that's nothing new, this IS America after all).
>
> If Bill Clinton is a liberal then I shudder to think what's considered
> conservative.
>
Coyu
>From: gra...@gooroos.com (Graydon)
>Date: Sun, Jun 28, 1998 01:22 EDT
>Coyu <co...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>From: Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca>
>>>you've got women who are you equals and are
>>>just as kinky as you are (see _Drakon_).
>>This differs from modern America how? ;-)
>No cases of libido mismatch; all drakensis are as horny as teenaged boys
>all the time. (well, presumably not if severly injured or something.)
No mismatch compared to the readers of _Drakon_?! Hm...
Perhaps Baen could use this in their advertising campaigns:
"Conquer the world... and then some!"
"Well, boys, you don't know how lucky you'll be - now it's _your_ turn!"
And of course, "The Stone Dogs - cheaper than Viagra."
_Marching through Georgia_ would become Oprah's next book club pick.
And I can't even imagine what the cons would be like.
Soundcage
>> If Bill Clinton is a liberal then I shudder to think what's considered
>> conservative.
>>
>I would have thought Newt Gingrich filled that role quite well?
Newtie is probably the most benign member of that crowd if only because he's
so buffoonish.
Dan Goodman
In article <6n5f1f$ldo$1...@winter.news.erols.com>,
Soundcage <soundca...@erols.com> wrote:
>In article <6n3q6b$63j$1...@205.138.137.34>, jbi...@novagate.com (Jerome Bigge) wrote:
>
>>Bill Clinton's (Hillary's) America writ large. A society where liberalism
>>had taken over. Lots of gun control. (Mentioned in THE STONE DOGS)
>
>consider Bill Clinton a liberal.
I suggest you learn something about American politics. You might begin by
reading the latest edition of the _Almanac of American Politics_.
Then, read the liberal "magazines of opinion" -- starting with the New
Republic, and moving left to -- oh, the Progressive. Note that Clinton is
characterized as someone who has betrayed liberalism; a turncoat.
He and his Republicrat cronies have been
>nothing if not a cheering squad for big business. Liberal indeed! Under his
>"liberal" policies, the poor and middle class are getting screwed without the
>Vaseline (but that's nothing new, this IS America after all).
>
>If Bill Clinton is a liberal then I shudder to think what's considered
>conservative.
You REALLY need to learn something about American politics. Have you ever
heard of a man called Rush Limbaugh? A magazine titled National Review?
The Republican Party?
Soundcage
>I suggest you learn something about American politics. You might begin by
>reading the latest edition of the _Almanac of American Politics_.
>
>Then, read the liberal "magazines of opinion" -- starting with the New
>Republic, and moving left to -- oh, the Progressive. Note that Clinton is
>characterized as someone who has betrayed liberalism; a turncoat.
I suggest you lose the superior attitude and stop talking down to people.
Your point is that Clinton is a turncoat. My point was that there's nothing
liberal about him and there never was other than a thin patina.
>
>He and his Republicrat cronies have been
>>nothing if not a cheering squad for big business. Liberal indeed! Under his
>>"liberal" policies, the poor and middle class are getting screwed without the
>>Vaseline (but that's nothing new, this IS America after all).
>>
>>If Bill Clinton is a liberal then I shudder to think what's considered
>>conservative.
>
>You REALLY need to learn something about American politics. Have you ever
>heard of a man called Rush Limbaugh? A magazine titled National Review?
>
>The Republican Party?
You've heard of sarcasm?
BTW, Rush Limbaugh is nothing less than a snake oil salesman. He no more
believes in the crap he spews than someone selling a cure-all elixir. He's a
charlatan. The only agenda important to him is lining his pockets.
As for the Republicans: Although they certainly show themselves as a hateful
bunch (the extreme right wing of the party does openly), their policies are no
different than the Democrats. Big Business rules. Money rules. And fuck the
poor slob who's trying to eek out a living, by undermining labor and creating
a society of "workfare" indentured servants.
Graydon
In article <199806281415...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Coyu <co...@aol.com> wrote:
>>From: gra...@gooroos.com (Graydon)
>>Date: Sun, Jun 28, 1998 01:22 EDT
>>Coyu <co...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>From: Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca>
>
>>>>you've got women who are you equals and are
>>>>just as kinky as you are (see _Drakon_).
>
>>>This differs from modern America how? ;-)
>
>>No cases of libido mismatch; all drakensis are as horny as teenaged boys
>>all the time. (well, presumably not if severly injured or something.)
>
>No mismatch compared to the readers of _Drakon_?! Hm...
No, no, all _drakensis_; if there are any drakensis reading :Drakon:,
well, it's not a pleasant possibility even if they _are_ laughing.
So you can point out that Draka don't have to worry about the fellow-Draka
they're sweet on being less (or more) interested in sex than they are;
they've all been normalized on the issue.
>Perhaps Baen could use this in their advertising campaigns:
>
>"Conquer the world... and then some!"
>
>"Well, boys, you don't know how lucky you'll be - now it's _your_ turn!"
>
>And of course, "The Stone Dogs - cheaper than Viagra."
>
>_Marching through Georgia_ would become Oprah's next book club pick.
>
>And I can't even imagine what the cons would be like.
They already hold various leather cons, you realize?
Although not imagining them is probably the better tactic.
Leigh Kimmel
In article <199806272015...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
desi...@aol.com (D E Siegel) writes:
> Since he also wrote at lease one non-fiction book explaining just how to use
> such fantasies to have a "more fulfilling" sex life, I think that this
> "speculation" is on pretty firm ground.
>
> OTOH, writing *fantasies* of situations involving non-consent (and Gor *was*
> after all, a fantasy) is not the same as advocating such conduct in real life.
> AFAIK none of his writings include such advocacy.
But the way the Gor novels (as opposed to Imaginative Sex, which never
got much distribution) are written, it is not clear that his endless
lectures about how women inherently want and long to be ruthlessly
dominated really refers to setting up such an imaginary world as a
scene between two people who have consented to enter such a scene, as
opposed to actually forcing women in RL.
It's bothersome because it's misleading to someone who was unfamiliar
with the practices and precautions of the BDSM subculture, came across
one of these books and thought it was for real and hurt someone badly.
The new editions from Masquerade Press are probably less perilous in
this way than the old DAW ones, since the new ones have covers that are
less likely to appeal to teens, are generally not sold in mass-market
bookstores right alongside regular sf, and now each come with
introductions by people involved with the sex industry and have some
references that will hopefully point readers toward information on how
to keep one's BDSM play safe, sane and consentual, even when
temporarily suspending the normal mechanisms of consent within a scene.
Dan Goodman
In article <6n5ojb$f7h$1...@winter.news.erols.com>,
Soundcage <soundca...@erols.com> wrote:
>In article <Batl1.1918$P8.66...@ptah.visi.com>, dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>
>>I suggest you learn something about American politics. You might begin by
>>reading the latest edition of the _Almanac of American Politics_.
>>
>>Then, read the liberal "magazines of opinion" -- starting with the New
>>Republic, and moving left to -- oh, the Progressive. Note that Clinton is
>>characterized as someone who has betrayed liberalism; a turncoat.
>
>I suggest you lose the superior attitude and stop talking down to people.
>Your point is that Clinton is a turncoat.
Look, Dick. Look, Jane. Look, Sally. Look at what was said. Read what
was said.
I don't consider Clinton a turncoat, and I never said I did.
My point was that there's nothing
>liberal about him and there never was other than a thin patina.
Several thousand people who make their livings from their knowledge of
American politics disagree with you.
>>He and his Republicrat cronies have been
>>>nothing if not a cheering squad for big business. Liberal indeed! Under his
>>>"liberal" policies, the poor and middle class are getting screwed without the
>>>Vaseline (but that's nothing new, this IS America after all).
>>>
>>>If Bill Clinton is a liberal then I shudder to think what's considered
>>>conservative.
>>
>>You REALLY need to learn something about American politics. Have you ever
>>heard of a man called Rush Limbaugh? A magazine titled National Review?
>>
>>The Republican Party?
>
>You've heard of sarcasm?
>BTW, Rush Limbaugh is nothing less than a snake oil salesman. He no more
>believes in the crap he spews than someone selling a cure-all elixir. He's a
>charlatan. The only agenda important to him is lining his pockets.
Interesting that you know more about this than, for example, Al Franken
(author of _Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot). Huge numbers of people
who like Rush Limbaugh no better than you do, and have credentials as
professional observers of politics, have failed to see what you have.
>As for the Republicans: Although they certainly show themselves as a hateful
>bunch (the extreme right wing of the party does openly), their policies are no
>different than the Democrats.
On this you agree with, among others: 1) the Trotskyites who have
convinced themselves that Castro runs a genuine paradise in which no trace
of Stalinism can be found; 2) the people who say that the US was a
Christian country until 1924 -- when six conspirators in Greenwich Village
changed that; 3) Ross Perot.
Big Business rules. Money rules. And fuck the
>poor slob who's trying to eek out a living, by undermining labor and creating
>a society of "workfare" indentured servants.
>
>To e-mail: remove NOSPAM
>
>ICQ users: My ICQ number is 8561677
Kristopher/EOS
JoatSimeon wrote:
>
> >tamela
>
> >The day the U.S.S.R. invaded, er assisted local socialists in Afghanistan I
> told a friend: "If the British Empire backed away from
> there, these guys will really screw up". They did. I get to be right on things
> like this about once every ten years.
>
> -- though to be fair, the guerilla victory required extensive Western
> assistance and the internal collapse of the USSR.
Actually, it has been my opinion that the failure in Afganistan was a
contributing factor to the collapse, instead of the other way around.
> OTOH, anyone with half a brain could have _predicted_ the Western assistance --
> it was an invitation to Vietnam-in-reverse -- and that the effects on the
> Soviet system would be unfortunate.
>
> Fortunately for us, under Breshnev the USSR had effectly been self-lobotomized.
>
> Stalin would have acted very differently, or even Khruschev.
On those points, you're dead on, IMO.
> -- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>kimmel@siu
> really refers to setting up such an imaginary world as a scene between two
people who have consented to enter such a scene, as
opposed to actually forcing women in RL.
-- that's because Norman actually does believe that women want to be ruthlessly
dominated in the Real World.
He's not kidding. He means it literally. (I've met him and I asked him about
it, by the way.)
-- S.M. Stirling
Brenda Clough
JoatSimeon wrote:
Must have a dampening impact on his social life.
Brenda
--
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD from Tor Books
<clo...@erols.com> http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda
David Zink
In article <199806281855...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) writes:
>-- that's because Norman actually does believe that women want to be ruthlessly
>dominated in the Real World.
>
>He's not kidding. He means it literally. (I've met him and I asked him about
>it, by the way.)
His wife looks happy.
To me he seems a classic philosopher--he has a belief system, the fact
that it is not well socialized only makes him feel more
self-righteous. He'd be literally accurate if he could only tone down
the broad sweep of his generalizations. (*Some women want to be
ruthlessly dominated in the Real World.* is literally true. Sorry,
John, the rest aren't all suppressing it.)
A girlfriend of mine once gave me a copy of his book on practical
sexuality--sorry kids, some men have no interest in domination.
Pat McMurray
>
>On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 05:39:03 GMT, Mark Jones <sin...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>>
>I found the Draka very "believable". On the other hand the Alliance
>for Democracy was quite obviously our own America with liberals in
>firm control of everything.
I'm sorry to disagree Jerome, but I don't feel the Alliance could be
described as a Liberal society in either the European or American sense of
the word. Staying away from the issue of Gun Control (which always raises
more heat than light) it's very clear that there's very tight central
control and censorship of information in the "Alliance for Democracy".
It's much more like the sort of society that we left behind in the 1950s.
Basically the 1960s never really took place in the Draka timeline. It's a
while since I read any of the books, but frankly I'd not much sympathy for
the AfD as portrayed in Stone Dogs.
Pat McMurray
The Memory Hole Annex
An Archive & Repository of Convention Materials
http://www.cooky.demon.co.uk/index.html
JoatSimeon
>pat
>It's much more like the sort of society that we left behind in the 1950s.
Basically the 1960s never really took place in the Draka timeline.
-- basically correct. However, the Alliance doesn't have much choice. War and
serious preparation for war always have a centralizing effect; it's
inescapable.
-- S.M. Stirling
Coyu
>From: gra...@gooroos.com (Graydon)
>Date: Sun, Jun 28, 1998 11:29 EDT
>No, no, all _drakensis_; if there are any drakensis reading :Drakon:,
>well, it's not a pleasant possibility even if they _are_ laughing.
Well, I _hope_ it got a chuckle.
>They already hold various leather cons, you realize?
>Although not imagining them is probably the better tactic.
Oh yes - a friend of mine took me to The Vault when I first moved
to NYC years ago - people _still_ ask me to re-tell the story.
Keith Morrison
Leon Myerson wrote:
> >-- that's because Norman actually does believe that women want to be ruthlessly
> >dominated in the Real World.
> >
> >He's not kidding. He means it literally. (I've met him and I asked him about
> >it, by the way.)
>
> Has he read your Draka books? I'd love to know what he'd think of
> your female warriors. :-)
It was brought up on the cross-over thread a while back. _Drakon
of Gor_. Gwen does the submissive thing until it no longer amuses
her and then rips the planet apart. And the men of Gor learns
what *real* superiority is a ll about.
--
Keith Morrison
kei...@polarnet.ca
Tamela R. Germano
In article <199806281855...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
> >kimmel@siu
>
> > really refers to setting up such an imaginary world as a scene between two
> people who have consented to enter such a scene, as
> opposed to actually forcing women in RL.
>
> -- that's because Norman actually does believe that women want to be
ruthlessly
> dominated in the Real World.
>
> He's not kidding. He means it literally. (I've met him and I asked him about
> it, by the way.)
> -- S.M. Stirling
When those were first published, I read them...up to the one that
followed the book that the "hero" was made a slave in. That one (in that
the tale turned to miss-spell a phrase) showed promise, the follow up was
even worse than the first three of four. I stuck with the Mouser and
Fafard for S&S, and even plotted in my mind a meeting between the GOR
mythos and Leibers. I thought ROG would do for a title. A lot of bold
bragging and junior-high male philosophy from one side, a dagger and wry
comment from the other:-)
Dino in Reno
Phil Hunt
In article <199806281855...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
joats...@aol.com "JoatSimeon" writes:
> -- that's because Norman actually does believe that women want to be ruthlessly
> dominated in the Real World.
Is he round the twist?
--
Phil Hunt
"Dreaming something won't make it happen,
but not dreaming something will make it not happen"
Leon Myerson
joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
You made reference to a McCarthy-esque persecution of alleged
"Drak-Symps" in the timeline's 1950's. I've been wondering whether it
wouldn't have been a mirror image of our own experience, with the
supposed Draka sympathizers all coming from the political right, not
the left as with our own alleged Communist dupes and fellow-travelers.
Indeed, I would think the political left would be as inherently
hostile towards the Domination as it was towards apartheid South
Africa.
Leon Myerson
joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
>>kimmel@siu
>
>> really refers to setting up such an imaginary world as a scene between two
>people who have consented to enter such a scene, as
>opposed to actually forcing women in RL.
>
>-- that's because Norman actually does believe that women want to be ruthlessly
>dominated in the Real World.
>
>He's not kidding. He means it literally. (I've met him and I asked him about
>it, by the way.)
>-- S.M. Stirling
Has he read your Draka books? I'd love to know what he'd think of
your female warriors. :-)
Soundcage
>
>>BTW, Rush Limbaugh is nothing less than a snake oil salesman. He no more
>>believes in the crap he spews than someone selling a cure-all elixir. He's a
>>charlatan. The only agenda important to him is lining his pockets.
>
>Interesting that you know more about this than, for example, Al Franken
>(author of _Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot). Huge numbers of people
>who like Rush Limbaugh no better than you do, and have credentials as
>professional observers of politics, have failed to see what you have.
Wow, you mean Professor Franken, the genius! Come on and face it, Rush
Limburger is a radio performer, he knows where he's carved a niche. The guy's
playing to the crowd, telling 'em what they want to hear. The fact that he
uses ridiculous and dubious "facts" to back his arguments should be enough to
make people realize that he's laughing at his audience. Either that or he's a
complete nut...which I don't believe.
>
>>As for the Republicans: Although they certainly show themselves as a hateful
>>bunch (the extreme right wing of the party does openly), their policies are no
>
>>different than the Democrats.
>
>On this you agree with, among others: 1) the Trotskyites who have
>convinced themselves that Castro runs a genuine paradise in which no trace
>of Stalinism can be found; 2) the people who say that the US was a
>Christian country until 1924 -- when six conspirators in Greenwich Village
>changed that; 3) Ross Perot.
>
LOL! And exactly what does this prove? That I'm some sort of fellow traveler
with these folks. How very H.U.A.C. of you.
FYI, I also happen to agree with the likes of Michael Parrenti, Noam Chomsky,
and Jerry Brown, just to name a few (not to mention Dr. Albert Lewis, PhD.).
But hey, they're no Al Franken.
Jerome Bigge
On 28 Jun 1998 15:50:26 GMT, kim...@siu.edu (Leigh Kimmel) wrote:
>In article <199806272015...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>desi...@aol.com (D E Siegel) writes:
>
>> Since he also wrote at lease one non-fiction book explaining just how to use
>> such fantasies to have a "more fulfilling" sex life, I think that this
>> "speculation" is on pretty firm ground.
>>
>> OTOH, writing *fantasies* of situations involving non-consent (and Gor *was*
>> after all, a fantasy) is not the same as advocating such conduct in real life.
>> AFAIK none of his writings include such advocacy.
>
>But the way the Gor novels (as opposed to Imaginative Sex, which never
>got much distribution) are written, it is not clear that his endless
>lectures about how women inherently want and long to be ruthlessly
>dominated really refers to setting up such an imaginary world as a
>scene between two people who have consented to enter such a scene, as
>opposed to actually forcing women in RL.
>
>It's bothersome because it's misleading to someone who was unfamiliar
>with the practices and precautions of the BDSM subculture, came across
>one of these books and thought it was for real and hurt someone badly.
>The new editions from Masquerade Press are probably less perilous in
>this way than the old DAW ones, since the new ones have covers that are
>less likely to appeal to teens, are generally not sold in mass-market
>bookstores right alongside regular sf, and now each come with
>introductions by people involved with the sex industry and have some
>references that will hopefully point readers toward information on how
>to keep one's BDSM play safe, sane and consentual, even when
>temporarily suspending the normal mechanisms of consent within a scene.
I've seen them at our local Barnes & Noble in among the SF. Looking
in the back of these books, they list a number of BDSM books that you
can buy from the same publisher. I suspect however the BDSM fan who
buys one for the BDSM is going to be a bit disappointed however, as they
are not "hard core" by any means. On the other hand "GOR" fans who want
to complete their collection of John Norman's works now have the opportunity
to do so. According to the newsgroup, JN is writing another novel to add to the
series. I'll buy it when it comes out, although I hope its not another written
from Norman's "feminine viewpoint" as I've gotten pretty tired of those...
>
>"I have a right to be blind sometimes... I really don't see the
>signal!"
> -- Admiral Lord Nelson
>
>Leigh Kimmel -- writer, artist and historian
>kim...@siu.edu http://members.tripod.com/~kimmel/lhkwebpage.html
>Listowner of Virtual Selyn, the Sime~Gen mailing list,
>sime...@siu.edu
>Ask me how to order the new Sime~Gen novel
-
Jerome Bigge (jbi...@novagate.com) NRA Life Member
Author of the "WARLADY" series of SF fantasy novels.
And of the "alternative history" WARTIME series where
history was just a little bit "different" from our own!
Download them all at http://www.novagate.com/~jbigge
Government is more often the "problem", not the "solution"...
Jerome Bigge
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 21:21:24 +0000, p...@cooky.demon.co.uk (Pat McMurray) wrote:
>In article <6n3q6b$63j$1...@205.138.137.34>,
>jbi...@novagate.com (Jerome Bigge) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 05:39:03 GMT, Mark Jones <sin...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>
>>I found the Draka very "believable". On the other hand the Alliance
>>for Democracy was quite obviously our own America with liberals in
>>firm control of everything.
>
>I'm sorry to disagree Jerome, but I don't feel the Alliance could be
>described as a Liberal society in either the European or American sense of
>the word. Staying away from the issue of Gun Control (which always raises
>more heat than light) it's very clear that there's very tight central
>control and censorship of information in the "Alliance for Democracy".
A society at war is going to look like that. Remember when we were
very "concerned" about the Russians? Remember Joe McCarthy?
>It's much more like the sort of society that we left behind in the 1950s.
>Basically the 1960s never really took place in the Draka timeline. It's a
>while since I read any of the books, but frankly I'd not much sympathy for
>the AfD as portrayed in Stone Dogs.
>
>Pat McMurray
>
>The Memory Hole Annex
>An Archive & Repository of Convention Materials
>http://www.cooky.demon.co.uk/index.html
>
My impression of the Alliance for Democracy is that it never seemed to
really get its act together against the Draka. On the other hand I don't
think we'd do any better... Probably just as well we didn't share their
"universe". On the other hand the rate of technological advance in
"THE STONE DOGS" is just too fast to be really believable here.
I've heard that there was some guerrilla resistance to the Soviets
in Eastern Europe up into the '50's. (About like various resistance
movements against the Draka.) However, so far as I know, the US
never against did anything to support these. So realistically, I don't
think our own America would do any better against the Draka than did
Stirling's "Alliance for Democracy"... It's awful hard to get people to make
the sort of personal sacrifices necessary. Then you always have those who
believe that the "enemy" isn't the "threat" that he's made out to be. And those
who believe that submission is better than massive deaths in an atomic war.
JoatSimeon
>lmyerson
>Indeed, I would think the political left would be as inherently hostile
towards the Domination as it was towards apartheid South
Africa.
-- in the Domination timeline, there _is_ no real "left", not after the
Eurasian War, in any case. Marxism has vanished and nobody to speak of is a
Socialist.
-- S.M. Stirling
bouf...@main.ionia-mi.net
In article <199806282138...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
>
> >pat
>
> >It's much more like the sort of society that we left behind in the 1950s.
> Basically the 1960s never really took place in the Draka timeline.
>
> serious preparation for war always have a centralizing effect; it's
> inescapable.
> -- S.M. Stirling
>
Mr. Stirling,
In the thrid bok there was a mention of a punk rock like band or something
that sound like such to me, when Fredrick was was telling his daughters to
behave or he would like the airlock for a week or so. So did Alliance have a
"punk revolution" or did I miss interpet this?
Thanks,
Eric:)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
JoatSimeon
>bouffard
>In the thrid bok there was a mention of a punk rock like band or something
that sound like such to me, when Fredrick was was telling his daughters to
behave or he would like the airlock for a week or so. So did Alliance have a
"punk revolution" or did I miss interpet this?
-- more like a mild rock-and-roll. Chuck B, sort of.
-- S.M. Stirling
Jay Random
Soundcage wrote:
>
> I can't keep quiet on this one. I'm amazed that anyone would even remotely
> nothing if not a cheering squad for big business. Liberal indeed! Under his
> "liberal" policies, the poor and middle class are getting screwed without the
> Vaseline (but that's nothing new, this IS America after all).
>
> If Bill Clinton is a liberal then I shudder to think what's considered
> conservative.
Bill Clinton is by no stretch of the imagination a liberal, but he sure
as hell ain't conservative (said the conservative). As near as I can
tell, he is a good deal more in sympathy with the butchers of Tiananmen
even than his close public connexions with them would make it appear. I
have heard it suggested, & by liberals at that, that Clinton is the only
U.S. president since John Adams who actively disapproved of civil
liberty; the ACLU cites him as having contravened, or tried to legislate
in opposition to, (IIRC) nine of the ten amendments in the Bill of
Rights. Think `Communications Decency Act'.
Clinton & company are not `a cheering squad for big business', but
simply a cheering squad for the Almighty Organization against the free
individual. Big business, big government, big media, & the latest
bugbear, Big Health -- a seat on the Board for your HMO! -- are all
waxing fat under the current administration.
What's considered conservative? It may be instructive to look at the
Rev. Jerry Falwell. Falwell appears to believe that he, on behalf of
God, should dictate every detail of the private & public lives of the
American people. Clinton appears to believe that he, _as_ God,
should....
--J. Random Libertarian, D.G.F.V.
JoatSimeon
>jay random
>Bill Clinton is by no stretch of the imagination a liberal, but he sure as
hell ain't conservative (said the conservative).
-- slightly left of center, in the American spectrum. He'd be somewhat right
of center in the Canadian one ("socialized medicine" is utterly mainstream
there).
-- S.M. Stirling
Jay Random
Nowadays, he'd be slightly left of centre in Canada (said the Canadian),
chiefly because Canada is running out of politicians who are still fool
enough to believe that throwing gobs of money at problems with no
well-defined plan of attack is a good way to win votes.
--J. Random Etc. Etc., D.G.F.V.
JoatSimeon
>Jay Random
>(said the Canadian)
-- I'm a Canadian too, by the way.
-- S.M. Stirling
Michael Powers
On 27 Jun 1998 16:21:27 GMT, kim...@siu.edu (Leigh Kimmel) wrote:
>In article <6n1p7p$407$4...@205.138.137.39>
>jbi...@novagate.com (Jerome Bigge) writes:
>
>>
>> Why do these two authors' books "disturb" so many people?
I couldn't say about the "GOR" series, never read it. The "DRAKA"
series, on the other hand...that bothers people so much because:
A: The Draka are evil (or at least behave in an evil manner.)
B: They _know_ it.
C: They're winning.
Usually you only ever see two of these three put together, and when
you add in the third there's a dramatic shift in the story and
everything gets a lot happier. When you have evil people who're
winning, they usually don't know that they're behaving in an evil
manner and "see the light". When you have evil people who know that
they're evil, they generally get defeated near the end of the story.
And when you have people who _think_ they're evil and are successful
in their plans, they usually don't turn out to really be evil after
all.
Mike Powers
Sea Wasp
Good job portraying Americans in your novels, then. While many
Americans make the mistake of thinking Canada is just an extension of
the USA with a silly name change, I have enough Canadian friends to know
better. We have a lot in common, but we ain't identical. And your
Americans, of all stripes, appear to be dead-on.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;;
_Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at http://www.hyperbooks.com
JoatSimeon
>seawasp
>Good job portraying Americans in your novels, then.
-- thanks! Have you seen "Island in the Sea of Time", by the way?
-- S.M. Stirling
PMccutc103
kim...@siu.edu (Leigh Kimmel) wrote:
>Gor -- beyond it's being incompetently written and the obvious sexism,
>if the speculations are true that he was actually writing up his BDSM
>fantasies, he failed to make any distinction between consenting adults
>playing such a scenario as part of a scene vs. a genuinely
>non-consentual situation.
I understand the distinction between real-live abuse and an S&M scene between
consenting adults. But it's not clear to me why every story with S&M elements
need only show the S&M as a part of a "scene" in the story.
Look at it this way: an S&M scene consists of a context and a story. In the
context, we have things like consent, agreed-upon limits, "the safeword is
'jello,'" etc. In the _story_, we have stuff like "lick my boots, slave," and
"Please mistress, don't whip me again! <Whack!>."
The _scene_ is not a violation of anybody's rights because of the context of
consent, even if the _story_ involves begging for mercy and not having one's
pleas answwered. (Andrea Dworkin is confused about S&M, in large part because
she takes the story literally, without taking into account the context.)
Now, your gripe about the Gor books -- that they contain non-consensual S&M --
is basically a demand that they contain _both_ the context and the story.
However, if you think of reading the book as a "scene," then it seems to me
that the context is the decision to purchase -- and read -- the book. You --
the reader -- consent, because you bought the book, or borrowed it from a
friend. You even has a "safeword" -- put the damn thing down, if it gets too
heavy.
The _characters_ in the story aren't consenting, but the reader certainly is.
And why exactly should the characters have to consent -- it's not as if they're
real after all. If it's OK to act out a scene (with consent, pre-arranged
safewords, etc.) in which women are "enslaved" and made to love it, why exactly
is it wrong to read a _story_ in which women are enslaved and like it?
It seems to me that people who object because there's no consent _in the books_
are making the same mistake as Andrea Dworkin when she looks at an S&M scene
and takes the story in the scene literally.
As to the Gor books being badly written -- well, I certainly agree with that.
--
Pete McCutchen
JoatSimeon
>pmccutc
>It seems to me that people who object because there's no consent _in the
books_
are making the same mistake as Andrea Dworkin when she looks at an S&M scene
and takes the story in the scene literally.
-- but Norman _means_ them literally. (He told me so, and it's also exactly
what any objective reader would think.)
I have nonconsensual sex scenes in my books, but I try to show them
_realistically_ -- ie., as horrible even when "stockholm syndrome"
psychological transferrence takes place.
-- S.M. Stirling
Sea Wasp
I was in fact referring to that one specifically. My wife was born on
the Cape, so I'm well informed on how that particular subspecies of
'Murrican is supposed to act.
Island in the Sea of Time was one of my Staff Selections at Borders;
sold pretty well, too.
JoatSimeon
>Sea Wasp
>Island was one of my staff selections at Borders...
-- thanks!
-- S.M. Stirling
PMccutc103
soundca...@erols.com (Soundcage) wrote:
>Your point is that Clinton is a turncoat. My point was that there's nothing
>liberal about him and there never was other than a thin patina.
It depends in large part on what you mean by "liberal," I suppose.
However, Bill Clinton has supported:
1) a tax increase for "the rich," including, you should be glad to know, a
_retroactive_ tax increase when he was first elected;
2) a plan that would have dramatically expanded the role of the federal
government in health care;
3) Job Corps and various other federal "jobs" programs for teenagers;
4) raising minimum wages;
5) he favors gun control, including the Brady Bill, "assault weapons bans," and
various other unspecified initiatives;
6. his DOJ is pursuing a big antitrust case against a large company;
7. he supports affirmative action, even if he wants to "mend it" in some
unspecified manner rather than ending it;
8. his appointees have made the National Labor Relations Board more
union-friendly than any NLRB since LBJ;
9. he nominated one bona-fide lefitst, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, to the Supreme
Court;
10. He has assiduously opposed school vouchers and plans to shift Social
Security to some sort of mandatory private investment account, as in Chile.
Now, I'm really not trying to start a fight about the desirability of these
things -- we've had enough off-topic debate lately, espcially about item 5) on
my list. We probably disagree about them all, and that's perfectly OK.
However, Clinton clearly holds many views that are typically associated with
liberals, at least in modern parlance.
Now, that said, I agree that Clinton is not as liberal as George McGovern or
Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale or Mike Dukakis.
He has broken with the old "liberal" positions in a number of respects -- on
crime and police power issues, for example, where he can be counted on to
support expanded police powers. Which in my view is a net loss; he has all of
the disadvantages of "Old Democrats," but none of their good features.
And he did sign the welfare reform bill, even if he thought it had flaws,
something that made his reelection virutally certain but earned him the
turncoat label from places like _The Nation_.
But even if Clinton has selectively abandonned liberalism, I think it's wrong
to suggest that his liberalism is "just a thin veneer."
--
Pete McCutchen
PMccutc103
joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
>-- that's because Norman actually does believe that women want to be
>ruthlessly
>dominated in the Real World.
>
>He's not kidding. He means it literally. (I've met him and I asked him
>about
>it, by the way.)
Well, OK; that's what he believes.
Does he also believe in forcing women who claim (untruthfully) that they don't
want to be ruthlessly dominated into submission is a good practice? Does he
advocate rape? As opposed to fantasy "rape" involving storybook characters
and/or people who actually consent to be ruthlessly dominated.
I mean, I could believe that every women in the universe wants me. (I don't
believe this, just for the record.) Such a belief would be harmless, so long
as I didn't attempt to use violent or other illegitimate means in order to get
women to realize their secret desire.
--
Pete McCutchen
PMccutc103
joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
>-- but Norman _means_ them literally. (He told me so, and it's also exactly
>what any objective reader would think.)
That's a bit troublesome, but so long as the guy doesn't actually engage in any
anti-social acts, I really don't care what the thinks.
>
>I have nonconsensual sex scenes in my books, but I try to show them
>_realistically_ -- ie., as horrible even when "stockholm syndrome"
>psychological transferrence takes place.
Let us suppose we have a person, male or female, who fantasies about being
arrested by the Secret Police, interrogated, and forced to service them
sexually. Now, this person doesn't _really_ want this to happen, any more than
I'd _really_ like to be Miles Vorkosigan or Honor Harrington. It's a _fantasy_
that the person finds sexually stimulating.
This person might read a story about such an experience (I'm sure you could
find one on alt.sex.stories or a similar location), or might have some dominant
people act it out as a part of an S&M scene. In either case, it's still just a
fantasy. And if Norman doesn't actually go around raping and/or enslaving
women, it's probably just a fantasy with him, too, no matter what he says.
Must every S&M tale involve the _characters_ in the story agreeing on
safewords, etc?
--
Pete McCutchen
Elisabeth Carey
PMccutc103 wrote:
<snip>
> Well, OK; that's what he believes.
>
> Does he also believe in forcing women who claim (untruthfully) that they don't
> want to be ruthlessly dominated into submission is a good practice? Does he
> advocate rape? As opposed to fantasy "rape" involving storybook characters
> and/or people who actually consent to be ruthlessly dominated.
No, actually, he's a perfect gentleman. He believes that everyone
wants this _with their beloved_, that a woman can't be really happy
unless she is completely and utterly dominated by her man, nor a man
really happy unless he completely and utterly dominates his woman.
> I mean, I could believe that every women in the universe wants me. (I don't
> believe this, just for the record.) Such a belief would be harmless, so long
> as I didn't attempt to use violent or other illegitimate means in order to get
> women to realize their secret desire.
You also don't write novels and essays and give speeches explaining
that EVERYONE really feels this way, and that the people who claim
they don't are either liars or deluded. John Norman does. He's
completely serious about it; he'll argue, politely but passionately,
with you if you say that no, your own sexual tastes really _don't_ run
that way--because, after all, if you say they don't, you either don't
know your own tastes, or you're lying, for whateve weird reason. Given
that many people in fact find this sort of thing, not only not
sexually interesting, but actively distasteful, it's not unreasonable
of people to be offended and uncomfortable with his insistence.
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
PMccutc103 wrote:
>
> joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
>
> >-- but Norman _means_ them literally. (He told me so, and it's also exactly
> >what any objective reader would think.)
>
> That's a bit troublesome, but so long as the guy doesn't actually engage in any
> anti-social acts, I really don't care what the thinks.
Adn what if you're talking to him, and he insists that _you_ really
feel this way, TOO, and that when you deny it, you're either deluded
about your own sexual tastes, or you're lying to him because you've
been intimidated by the PC crowd? Absolutely insists on it; you're
either lying or out of touch with your own sexual tastes, no other
possibilities.
Is that fine with you, too? Doesn't annoy you or make you the least
bit uncomfortable?
Lis Carey
Chris Jones
In article <199806290923...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
>
> -- I'm a Canadian too, by the way.
Didn't realize this (thought you'd be US south, from the
characterization in some of the Draka books. Saying this as a lifelong,
multi-generation southerner myself.)
This does bring up something I noticed a while back however - back in
the fall during the great "Are the Draka feasible?" thread, it seemed that
most of the nay-sayers people were Yankees, while most of the others were
not. A quick search of Deja News seems to back this up - so what I'm
wondering is, is there something in the US mentality that makes us less
likely to buy into an otherwise plausible situation where we _don't_ win,
simply _because_ we don't win, and is this a failing that others,
Canadians, Brits, etc. see as obvious?
(And if so, might this have been a factor in you writing the Draka? A
"now it's your turn" type thing?)
-Chris Jones
Graydon
In article <6n9fso$f...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Damien R. Sullivan <pho...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>productive at all. I suppose the rapid steam engine and dirigible progress is
>questionable; America had lots of inventors, how did Drakia go so much
By being willing to give them lots and lots of money for successes. Note
the big prizes going to successful small arms inventors and the
willingness to finance Trevethick until his ears bled. Lots of
concentrated capital and the perception that technological edge was
actively necessary to maintain the relative social position of the holders
of that capital.
>On the other hand, I don't believe the Alliance virus was at all possible,
>and don't believe the microwave sensitivity of the Stone Dogs virus. I also
>question the creation of drakensis by 1980, particularly without programmable
>computers. Greater health, yeah, maybe strength, looks, and brains. But a
>longer lifespan, and particularly conscious pheromonal control? The first
The lifespan stuff is highly conservative if you take the views of the
folks working on cellular self destruct mechanisms seriously. The
phermones are the tricky part, certainly.
>And I like the cover of MTG, with the Drakon perched on top of a Nazi circle,
>instead of the globe, and taking a bite out of it.
The only thing I don't like about that cover is that I can't picture Eric
looking like that. Not beaky enough.
--
goo...@interlog.com | "However many ways there may be of being alive, it
--> mail to Graydon | is certain that there are vastly more ways of being
dead." - Richard Dawkins, :The Blind Watchmaker:
Damien R. Sullivan
Whee! For along time I've read the Draka threads. Some weeks ago I found
_Drakon_ and got to read that. Very recently I found the first three books
and got to read those. It was fun.
jbi...@novagate.com (Jerome Bigge) wrote:
>"universe". On the other hand the rate of technological advance in
>"THE STONE DOGS" is just too fast to be really believable here.
I know this has been discussed before, probably recently, but I'll jump in
anyway. The economic history in the appendix of _The Stone Dogs_ seemed
somewhat plausible to me, once you accept a modern serf society being
productive at all. I suppose the rapid steam engine and dirigible progress is
questionable; America had lots of inventors, how did Drakia go so much
further? But I think a lot of the recent argument was over the post Eurasian
War stuff; I found most of that broadly plausible too.
Smaller population, but better off and less complacent in the Alliance, and
possibly better educated given the example of the Draka; and a very well-off
and educated population in the Domination, supported by the larger serf
population. I particularly remember the 14 year old girls complaning about
secondary math: tensor calculus. (Since I learned basic calculus at age 13 I
consider this evidence of the good sense of the Draka, not wildly
implausible.)
As some one noted, there is no Third World after the Eurasian War. Actually
India is, but South America seems to have developed better under America's
influence, and Africa and Asia are developed to support the Draka.
How many scientists does the US have? There are 40 million Draka; I could
believe one million of them being researchers, plus the Class V serfs.
On the other hand, I don't believe the Alliance virus was at all possible,
and don't believe the microwave sensitivity of the Stone Dogs virus. I also
question the creation of drakensis by 1980, particularly without programmable
computers. Greater health, yeah, maybe strength, looks, and brains. But a
longer lifespan, and particularly conscious pheromonal control? The first
things are insertable from somewhere else, if you get lucky (no side
effects.) The latter seems to require advanced design.
Seductive world, though. Better environment. No starving Third World being
destroyed by its own kleptocrats. The same aristocratic glamour elves have in
fantasy.
And I like the cover of MTG, with the Drakon perched on top of a Nazi circle,
instead of the globe, and taking a bite out of it.
-xx- Damien R. Sullivan X-)
Jamethiel Apologizer is the cue ball of God.
Soundcage
>Adn what if you're talking to him, and he insists that _you_ really
>feel this way, TOO, and that when you deny it, you're either deluded
>about your own sexual tastes, or you're lying to him because you've
>been intimidated by the PC crowd? Absolutely insists on it; you're
>either lying or out of touch with your own sexual tastes, no other
>possibilities.
>
>Is that fine with you, too? Doesn't annoy you or make you the least
>bit uncomfortable?
>
>Lis Carey
I can't tell you how many times I've been lectured by women I know about how
men "really are". There's no arguing (unless I have time to kill and want to
have fun seeing how angry I can get someone) and usually no way I can change
their point of view. When I'm stuck in this sort of predicament I just wave
my hand at them and say "Rubbish"...then I walk away.
Soundcage
>You also don't write novels and essays and give speeches explaining
>that EVERYONE really feels this way, and that the people who claim
>they don't are either liars or deluded. John Norman does. He's
>completely serious about it; he'll argue, politely but passionately,
>with you if you say that no, your own sexual tastes really _don't_ run
>that way--because, after all, if you say they don't, you either don't
>know your own tastes, or you're lying, for whateve weird reason. Given
>that many people in fact find this sort of thing, not only not
>sexually interesting, but actively distasteful, it's not unreasonable
>of people to be offended and uncomfortable with his insistence.
>
>Lis Carey
Other than the fact that he obviously gets under your skin I really don't see
the problem here. Unless I missed something, he's allowed an opinion, as
stupid as it may be. I don't see who it harms, other than himself by making
him look foolish. And I really don't think there's much danger in anyone
following his philosophy, even some young kid. The first time he tries to put
it into practice he's in for a rude awakening.
PMccutc103
cold...@mail.utexas.edu (Chris Jones) wrote:
>
> Didn't realize this (thought you'd be US south, from the
>characterization in some of the Draka books. Saying this as a lifelong,
>multi-generation southerner myself.)
>
> This does bring up something I noticed a while back however - back in
>the fall during the great "Are the Draka feasible?" thread, it seemed that
>most of the nay-sayers people were Yankees, while most of the others were
>not. A quick search of Deja News seems to back this up - so what I'm
>wondering is, is there something in the US mentality that makes us less
>likely to buy into an otherwise plausible situation where we _don't_ win,
>simply _because_ we don't win, and is this a failing that others,
>Canadians, Brits, etc. see as obvious?
>
>
Well, it's possible, I suppose.
My own guess is that the degree to which you think that the Draka are plausible
turns largely on whether you have a realistic/doctrinaire (choose, depending on
your perspective) of the relative efficiency of free market economics.
On another thread, for example, Graydon posted a message (which I do plan to
respond to, but haven't gotten around to yet) in which he defended the efficacy
of central planning under certain circumstances if done right. Graydon is
undoubtedly a brilliant fellow, but I think that he's out-to-lunch on this one.
Well gee, is it any wonder, then, that Graydon thinks that the Draka books are
reasonably plausible, while I think that, far from being a society more
advanced than our own, the real Domination would be a miserable, backward,
dirty, squalid, destitue, hell hole of a society, and that, far from
outstripping our current level of progress, they'd be 20-30 years behind us.
Plus, "I don't like to lose," he said, taking a bit out of an apple.
--
Pete McCutchen
Kristopher/EOS
I haven't even read it, and I find it offensive already. Sorry, John,
but SOME men are a bit more secure and/or empathic than that. It's no
different than a fundamentalist Christian insisting that anyone who
doesn't "believe" is being deceived by Satan, or Marxists blathering
on about people not knowing their own self-interests, or siliopsists
insisting that every concept of the world except siliopsism is nothing
more than a system of beliefs based on pure faith.
It's an arrogant, egocentric, self-important attitude.
Sorry, John, but most of us aren't into that crap. And the only one
lying to himself is you.
Kristopher/EOS
Kristopher/EOS
Soundcage wrote:
>
> In article <5Ztl1.1927$P8.67...@ptah.visi.com>, dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>
> >
> >>BTW, Rush Limbaugh is nothing less than a snake oil salesman. He no more
> >>believes in the crap he spews than someone selling a cure-all elixir. He's a
> >>charlatan. The only agenda important to him is lining his pockets.
> >
> >Interesting that you know more about this than, for example, Al Franken
> >(author of _Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot). Huge numbers of people
> >who like Rush Limbaugh no better than you do, and have credentials as
> >professional observers of politics, have failed to see what you have.
>
> Wow, you mean Professor Franken, the genius! Come on and face it, Rush
> Limburger is a radio performer, he knows where he's carved a niche. The guy's
> playing to the crowd, telling 'em what they want to hear. The fact that he
> uses ridiculous and dubious "facts" to back his arguments should be enough to
> make people realize that he's laughing at his audience. Either that or he's a
> complete nut...which I don't believe.
> >
> >>As for the Republicans: Although they certainly show themselves as a hateful
> >>bunch (the extreme right wing of the party does openly), their policies are no
> >
> >>different than the Democrats.
> >
> >On this you agree with, among others: 1) the Trotskyites who have
> >convinced themselves that Castro runs a genuine paradise in which no trace
> >of Stalinism can be found; 2) the people who say that the US was a
> >Christian country until 1924 -- when six conspirators in Greenwich Village
> >changed that; 3) Ross Perot.
> >
>
> LOL! And exactly what does this prove? That I'm some sort of fellow traveler
> with these folks. How very H.U.A.C. of you.
>
> FYI, I also happen to agree with the likes of Michael Parrenti, Noam Chomsky,
> and Jerry Brown, just to name a few (not to mention Dr. Albert Lewis, PhD.).
> But hey, they're no Al Franken.
Al Franken is no different from Rush. They're both performers. Al is
no more qualified to make the judgements he does in that book than
Rush is to make the judgements he does.
As for Jerry Brown, last I knew, he also believed in alien
visitations.
Kristopher/EOS
Iron Czar
In rec.arts.sf.written, Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> spoke
thusly:
>PMccutc103 wrote:
>>
>> joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
>>
>> >-- but Norman _means_ them literally. (He told me so, and it's also exactly
>> >what any objective reader would think.)
>>
>> That's a bit troublesome, but so long as the guy doesn't actually engage in any
>> anti-social acts, I really don't care what the thinks.
>Adn what if you're talking to him, and he insists that _you_ really
>feel this way, TOO, and that when you deny it, you're either deluded
>about your own sexual tastes, or you're lying to him because you've
>been intimidated by the PC crowd? Absolutely insists on it; you're
>either lying or out of touch with your own sexual tastes, no other
>possibilities.
>Is that fine with you, too? Doesn't annoy you or make you the least
>bit uncomfortable?
Assuming that I disagreed with his position (which I do, at least with
his position as it's been described here,) I'd find it rather amusing.
But that's me.
Iron Czar
http://www.erienet.net/~ironczar
JoatSimeon
>pmccutc
>Does he also believe in forcing women who claim (untruthfully) that they don't
want to be ruthlessly dominated into submission is a good practice?
-- as far as I can tell, yes.
>Does he advocate rape? As opposed to fantasy "rape" involving storybook
characters
and/or people who actually consent to be ruthlessly dominated.
-- as far as I can tell, he thinks women only _think_ they don't want to be
subjected to sexual coercion.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>soundcage
>Unless I missed something, he's allowed an opinion, as stupid as it may be. I
don't see who it harms, other than himself by making
him look foolish.
-- ideas have consequences. All actions begin as ideas.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>Graydon
>I suppose the rapid steam engine and dirigible progress is questionable;
America had lots of inventors, how did Drakia go so much
>By being willing to give them lots and lots of money for successes.
-- essentially correct.
Also, the research institute and research laboratory come along earlier in
that timeline, "inventing the method of invention".
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>coldjones
>(And if so, might this have been a factor in you writing the Draka? A "now
it's your turn" type thing?)
-- to a certain extent. English-speaking Canada started as an _American_
offshoot, not a British one. There's a certain element of _schadenfreude_
involved, I admitt.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>pmccutc
>And if Norman doesn't actually go around raping and/or enslaving women, it's
probably just a fantasy with him, too, no matter what he says.
-- except that many men _do_ think "no" means "yes" and _do_ rape and sexually
abuse women. And they do so because their _ideas_ are much the same as
Norman's.
As a thought experiment, use a different word here.
Substitute "niggers" for "women".
Imagine a series where "niggers" realized their secret unacknowledged darkie
natures by being enslaved, flogged and bought and sold by fine upstanding blond
Aryan-looking white men.
And the author goes around giving speeches on how he really means this, and how
"niggers" really long to be enslaved by white men, their reistance is only
denial, and should be broken by force.
See what I mean?
>Must every S&M tale involve the _characters_ in the story agreeing on
safewords, etc? --
-- in terms of artistic integrity, more or less, yes.
If the situation shown is one which, _in reality_ , would constitute rape, then
it should be shown as a _real rape_, with the physical and psychological
consequences these actions actually have with real live breathing people.
If you want to show consensual S&M scenes, that's a different story.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>pmccutc
>he defended the efficacy of central planning under certain circumstances if
done right.
-- planning _in a market system_ can do wonders, given the right circumstances.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>pmccutc
>market economy...
-- actually, and this is a commonly misunderstood point, the Domination _does_
have a market economy.
(At least, it does as long as it's populated by human beings, and to a certain
extent thereafter.)
It was modeled on the antebellum South, Imperial Germany, and pre-1945 Japan,
with some features that are historically unique but, I think, plausible.
-- S.M. Stirling
Gary J. Weiner
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Should we burn all of
Mr. Norman's work and make sure he doesn't produce any more so
that his "dangerous ideas" are kept from being disseminated?
I wouldn't advocate this for "Mein Kampf" or "The Turner
Diaries", much less JN's little D/S fantasies.
--
Gary J. Weiner - webm...@hatrack.net
http://www.hatrack.net
HatRack Web Design & Hosting - Hang your web with us
-----
"Where else are you going to see cheating, transsexual twins?"
--Richard Dominick, Jerry Springer's executive producer
Dwight Williams
Chris Jones (cold...@mail.utexas.edu) writes:
> In article <199806290923...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
>
>>
>> -- I'm a Canadian too, by the way.
>
> Didn't realize this (thought you'd be US south, from the
> characterization in some of the Draka books. Saying this as a lifelong,
> multi-generation southerner myself.)
Well, as I understand - Mr. Stirling, please correct me if I've
misremembered your _Northwords_ interview here - he's done a *lot* of
travelling over the years. In this case, it seems to be serving him very
well, I'd think, based on your reaction to the material.
> This does bring up something I noticed a while back however - back in
> the fall during the great "Are the Draka feasible?" thread, it seemed that
> most of the nay-sayers people were Yankees, while most of the others were
> not. A quick search of Deja News seems to back this up - so what I'm
> wondering is, is there something in the US mentality that makes us less
> likely to buy into an otherwise plausible situation where we _don't_ win,
> simply _because_ we don't win, and is this a failing that others,
> Canadians, Brits, etc. see as obvious?
>
> (And if so, might this have been a factor in you writing the Draka? A
> "now it's your turn" type thing?)
Maybe it's because we're generally guided by our own history to accept
that we *can* be beaten at anything, and therefore should be more watchful
re: the circumstances that make such situations possible. Although I'm
personally leery at generalizing even that much here...
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Accidental Founder - _Chase_ Flame Keepers' Society
Gary J. Weiner
JoatSimeon wrote:
>
> >pmccutc
>
> >And if Norman doesn't actually go around raping and/or enslaving women, it's
> probably just a fantasy with him, too, no matter what he says.
>
> -- except that many men _do_ think "no" means "yes" and _do_ rape and sexually
> abuse women. And they do so because their _ideas_ are much the same as
> Norman's.
I really doubt that. I hven't heard any reports of him accosting women
at the numerous cons he has attended. Unlike some other authors (who
shall remain nameless) with more "liberal" ideas about women.
Ideas and actions are two seperate things.
> As a thought experiment, use a different word here.
>
> Substitute "niggers" for "women".
>
> Imagine a series where "niggers" realized their secret unacknowledged darkie
> natures by being enslaved, flogged and bought and sold by fine upstanding blond
> Aryan-looking white men.
>
> And the author goes around giving speeches on how he really means this, and how
> "niggers" really long to be enslaved by white men, their reistance is only
> denial, and should be broken by force.
>
> See what I mean?
Not really. Especially since, AFAIK, he has done no such thing. I've
been to many cons at which John Norman has been a guest and I've never
seen him "give a speech" on his personal beliefs in this regard. What
I've heard here is that people have asked him, privately, what his
beliefs are, and he has told them.
And, with all due respect, I have to believe that at least some of
the accounts here are heavily colored by the tellers' prior biases
about Mr. Norman.
I find it hard to believe that he believes in the forcible enlavement
of women (outside of the bedroom at least), considering that he chose
as his wife a woman who aquired an advanced degree (Phd?) and pursued
her own career at a time when such things were particularly difficult
for women.
>
> >Must every S&M tale involve the _characters_ in the story agreeing on
> safewords, etc? --
>
> -- in terms of artistic integrity, more or less, yes.
Bollocks.
> If the situation shown is one which, _in reality_ , would constitute rape, then
> it should be shown as a _real rape_, with the physical and psychological
> consequences these actions actually have with real live breathing people.
So, should all fantasies which involve swordplay show the "physical and
psychological consequences" of running someone through with a sword?
Should
Conan agonize over everyone he dispatches and suffer from PTSD?
Norman writes fantasy. As such, he makes the rules. If you don't like
them, don't read his work.
Soundcage
In article <199806300731...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
>>soundcage
>
>>Unless I missed something, he's allowed an opinion, as stupid as it may be. I
>don't see who it harms, other than himself by making
>him look foolish.
>
>-- ideas have consequences. All actions begin as ideas.
>-- S.M. Stirling
Agreed. But some ideas stay ideas and go no further. For example, a put upon
worker at some company might have murder fantasies about his boss, he may even
write a novel which outlines his "philosophy" about why killing your boss is a
good thing and that all workers secretly want to murder their bosses. But he
never acts upon these "ideas". They remain a fantasy. I don't see the
problem.
Also, I don't think that Norman's ideas about the enslavement of women are so
original in the first place. I'm sure there are plenty who've thought up this
little gem, it's just that he wrote about it in a series of books that were
popular at one time. Hell, I read about the first dozen of the Gor books but
was more interested in the action/adventure aspect than the Norman philosophy.
As for the consensual/non-consensual argument vis a vis the written word and
S/M: I see no connection between real life and words on a page. Fantasy CAN
and SHOULD explore those things that may be difficult or downright impossible
to do in the real world. I don't think it matters one bit whether they are
abhorent to some or not. As dangerous as people think Norman is, I can't
think of many imitators of his work (Sharon Green & Janet Morris are the only
ones who come to mind).
Craig J Neumeier
cold...@mail.utexas.edu (Chris Jones) writes:
> This does bring up something I noticed a while back however - back in
>the fall during the great "Are the Draka feasible?" thread, it seemed that
>most of the nay-sayers people were Yankees, while most of the others were
>not. A quick search of Deja News seems to back this up - so what I'm
>wondering is, is there something in the US mentality that makes us less
>likely to buy into an otherwise plausible situation where we _don't_ win,
>simply _because_ we don't win, and is this a failing that others,
>Canadians, Brits, etc. see as obvious?
Yes; this shows up on soc.history.what-if. It is not of course
universal, but you do get the people who have trouble believing
that Britain could have whipped us during the Civil War era.
It may also be a feature in the irritation at Turtledove's _How
Few Remain_, but that's hard to separate out from the genuine
imbalance of power which should exist, and perhaps certain other
knee-jerk elements in the book.
> (And if so, might this have been a factor in you writing the Draka? A
>"now it's your turn" type thing?)
Actually, I thought one of the odd things about the Draka timeline
is that there's a Canada at all -- it would work better if Canada
fell during the American Revolution, so there's not a more
convenient destination than South Africa available for the loyalists.
(But then Canada does get conquered in 1812, so the difference
isn't so great as all that.)
Craig Neumeier, LHN
James Nicoll
In article <coldjones-290...@dial-39-16.ots.utexas.edu>,
Chris Jones <cold...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <199806290923...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
>>
>> -- I'm a Canadian too, by the way.
>
> Didn't realize this (thought you'd be US south, from the
>characterization in some of the Draka books. Saying this as a lifelong,
>multi-generation southerner myself.)
>
>the fall during the great "Are the Draka feasible?" thread, it seemed that
>most of the nay-sayers people were Yankees, while most of the others were
>not. A quick search of Deja News seems to back this up - so what I'm
>wondering is, is there something in the US mentality that makes us less
>likely to buy into an otherwise plausible situation where we _don't_ win,
>simply _because_ we don't win, and is this a failing that others,
>Canadians, Brits, etc. see as obvious?
I read a book on US perceptions of US history back in the
1980s and in it the author claimed that for a number of decades
after the Tiny Scuffle of 1812, US textbooks taught that the US
lost the TSo1812. Then it was a draw and after about 1930 IMS,
they won the war. I'd be very curious to see if that were acutally
true; anyone have a US history book from 1840 or 1850?
In the '70s, the Americans I knew (and my family straddles
the border) thought the US lost in Viet Nam. That doesn't seem to be
the perception any more.
IM further S, it's illegal for a US government organization
to run a simulation in which the US is defeated in war. This is not
the case in Canada, where it is entirely legal to run a simulation
in which the US is defeated in war* :).
James Nicoll
* It'd be kinda fun, if extremely brief, to see how our old
invasion plans work in a modern context.
--
"That wasn't a come-up. *This* is a come-on."
"Ew. Ew, yuck."
"Sorry, it wasn't supposed to involve so much saliva."
Graydon
In article <neume001....@maroon.tc.umn.edu>,
Craig J Neumeier <neum...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>Actually, I thought one of the odd things about the Draka timeline
>is that there's a Canada at all -- it would work better if Canada
>fell during the American Revolution, so there's not a more
That would get the Scots and New England loyalists into the Domination,
probably, and screw up the initial cultural conditions.
>convenient destination than South Africa available for the loyalists.
>(But then Canada does get conquered in 1812, so the difference
>isn't so great as all that.)
Sure it is; the Domination doesn't get much immigration from that. There
really _is_ a difference between the southern loyalists and the UEL types.
Graydon
In article <199806300730...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
JoatSimeon <joats...@aol.com> wrote:
>>pmccutc
>>Does he also believe in forcing women who claim (untruthfully) that they don't
>want to be ruthlessly dominated into submission is a good practice?
>
>-- as far as I can tell, yes.
This is truly spectacularly bad insecurity managment on Mr. Norman's part,
if true, and I can't really shake the idea that a short trip to a
Domination senior girls school or one of the more ... enthusiastic manga
highschools would be good for his world view.
>>Does he advocate rape? As opposed to fantasy "rape" involving storybook
>characters
>and/or people who actually consent to be ruthlessly dominated.
>
>-- as far as I can tell, he thinks women only _think_ they don't want to be
>subjected to sexual coercion.
There's an extremely strange value of identity and personality lurking in
that opinion of Norman's (if accurate, etc.)
Keith Morrison
Chris Jones wrote:
> This does bring up something I noticed a while back however - back in
> the fall during the great "Are the Draka feasible?" thread, it seemed that
> most of the nay-sayers people were Yankees, while most of the others were
> not. A quick search of Deja News seems to back this up - so what I'm
> wondering is, is there something in the US mentality that makes us less
> likely to buy into an otherwise plausible situation where we _don't_ win,
> simply _because_ we don't win, and is this a failing that others,
> Canadians, Brits, etc. see as obvious?
I wouldn't go that far. Some of the harshest critics of the
plausibility of that timeline are not Americans and there are
more than a few of us Canadians who find the backstory not
very likely.
On the other hand, in general, non-Americans have the opportunity
to see some of the things that Americans take for granted because
we share a lot of your culture but from the outside, we can look
at it more objectively, or at least not from the American POV.
Just as a for instance, in another newsgroup there is one gentleman
who can't seem to grasp the concept that a working antiballistic
missile system totally controlled by the United States might not
be seen by other countries, even American allies, as necessarily
a good thing. As outsiders, we recognize the threat that a country
having a monopoly over a working system would create.
That's why you see so many Canadian comedians and reporters working
in the US. We look like you and sound like you so there is nothing
obviously different when you see one of us on the TV but we have an
outsider's view.
--
Keith Morrison
kei...@polarnet.ca
JoatSimeon
>Gary
>I really doubt that. I hven't heard any reports of him accosting women at the
numerous cons he has attended.
-- please read what I wrote. I didn't say that Norman accosted women -- he's a
pencil-necked little nebbish, in person -- I said that actual rapists share his
ideas about women.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>Gary
>Ideas and actions are two seperate things.
-- closely related things. All actions begin with ideas; Hitler thought long
before he killed. And the killing followed inexorably from the thoughts.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>Gary
>I find it hard to believe that he believes in the forcible enlavement of
women...
-- I don't, considering that (a) he told me so himself, and (b) it's entirely
consistent with everything he's ever written.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>Gary
>So, should all fantasies which involve swordplay show the "physical and
psychological consequences" of running someone through with a sword?
-- yup. Affectless violence is another form of pornography. I always try to
bring in the disgusting physical consequences of violent death -- it's messy
and it stinks, literally. (The bowels release, and/or are pierced.)
>Should Conan agonize over everyone he dispatches and suffer from PTSD?
-- Conan is a barbarian, a professional killer, a thug-for-hire. Of course
he's not going to react to violence the way a middle-class North American
would, any more than a Mafia hitman would.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>soundcage
>Also, I don't think that Norman's ideas about the enslavement of women are so
original in the first place.
-- they're far from original; merely an exaggeration of traditional, misogynist
contempt/fear/hatred towards women.
Note the consequences of those traditional ideas...
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>Gary J. Weiner
>I wouldn't advocate this for "Mein Kampf" or "The Turner Diaries", much less
JN's little D/S fantasies.
-- we should keep in mind, and publicly proclaim, that Norman's stuff IS
equivalent to "The Turner Diaries" and Mein Kampf."
Bakka, the Toronto SF store, used to shelve the Gor books with a little sign
next to them: "If you buy these, the staff will sneer at you."
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>soundcage
>Agreed. But some ideas stay ideas and go no further. For example, a put upon
worker at some company might have murder fantasies about his boss...
-- known as "going postal", lately.
Shame and guilt operate to control antisocial impulses and thoughts. When
those are removed by desensitization or by social approval, action is more
likely to follow.
Every word and image and thought contributes to both the mental universe of the
individual and the general climate of opinion and sentiment and worldview in
society at large.
There is very extensive violence towards women in our society, and a major
cause is a conviction on the part of many men that it's tolerable, or that
women are "asking for it", that they like to be slapped around, etc.
These are _ideas_ (eg., Freud's theory of womens' 'natural masochism'). And
ideas are the root of all action.
-- S.M. Stirling
Charles Whitney
Jay Random <jra...@shaw.wave.ca> wrote in article
<359744...@shaw.wave.ca>...
> Soundcage wrote:
> >
> > I can't keep quiet on this one. I'm amazed that anyone would even
remotely
> > consider Bill Clinton a liberal. He and his Republicrat cronies have
been
> > nothing if not a cheering squad for big business. Liberal indeed!
Under his
> > "liberal" policies, the poor and middle class are getting screwed
without the
> > Vaseline (but that's nothing new, this IS America after all).
> >
> > If Bill Clinton is a liberal then I shudder to think what's considered
> > conservative.
>
> Bill Clinton is by no stretch of the imagination a liberal, but he sure
> as hell ain't conservative (said the conservative). As near as I can
> tell, he is a good deal more in sympathy with the butchers of Tiananmen
> even than his close public connexions with them would make it appear. I
> have heard it suggested, & by liberals at that, that Clinton is the only
> U.S. president since John Adams who actively disapproved of civil
> liberty; the ACLU cites him as having contravened, or tried to legislate
> in opposition to, (IIRC) nine of the ten amendments in the Bill of
> Rights. Think `Communications Decency Act'.
People, please get this right. You should have learned this in your 7th
grade civics class.
The President doesn't legislate ANYTHING! That's what Congress does. The
President just signs bills that have been proposed, sponsored, dicked
around and eventually approved by Congress. It's up to him and his branch
to execute the laws passed.
It's the legislative body that passed those laws. Clinton merely approved
them, which isn't much better, but he didn't legislate them.
(Also, does anyone understand that if he hadn't signed the CDA, knowing as
any slightly competent lawyer would that it would be shot down immediately,
he'd be cast as the President who sided with the pornographers in a choice
between pornographers and children? Would have looked wonderful in an
election year. Also, if you veto things that attack the principles of the
4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, you're made out to look as if you're siding
with criminals. The 8th Amendment is subjective, so anyone supporting the
death penalty could be considered to contravene it. You support the 1st
Amendment and you take the side with flagburners, pornographers, Nazis and
communists, among others. Do you see why it's not particularly politically
expedient to be so supportive of the Bill of Rights?)
Charles
yon lew
Charles Whitney (whit...@whit0435.email.umn.edu) wrote:
: Jay Random <jra...@shaw.wave.ca> wrote in article
Kind of. The President can suggest legislation, (even if an actual
Congressman has to formally submit it), he can plot behind the scenes, he
can make suggestions for modifications to pending legislation, he can get
down and twist arms, etc.
So even if he doesn't have any formal involvement, he's still involved in
a very real way.
: (Also, does anyone understand that if he hadn't signed the CDA, knowing as
: any slightly competent lawyer would that it would be shot down immediately,
: he'd be cast as the President who sided with the pornographers in a choice
: between pornographers and children? Would have looked wonderful in an
: election year. Also, if you veto things that attack the principles of the
: 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, you're made out to look as if you're siding
: with criminals. The 8th Amendment is subjective, so anyone supporting the
: death penalty could be considered to contravene it. You support the 1st
: Amendment and you take the side with flagburners, pornographers, Nazis and
: communists, among others. Do you see why it's not particularly politically
: expedient to be so supportive of the Bill of Rights?)
Great, so he's a gutless wonder. Then again, what else is new?
yon lew
JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) wrote:
: >jay random
: >Bill Clinton is by no stretch of the imagination a liberal, but he sure as
: hell ain't conservative (said the conservative).
: -- slightly left of center, in the American spectrum. He'd be somewhat right
: of center in the Canadian one ("socialized medicine" is utterly mainstream
: there).
I dunno. It seems to me that Clinton is the perfect president for our
troubled times, in that his ideology is drawn scattershot from all over
the political spectrum.
The really useful part of this is that he can't seem to get anything
done, althought the inevitable scandals probably have something to do
with that.
daniel patrick duffy
JoatSimeon wrote:
>
> >Gary J. Weiner
>
> >You might as well tell people they shouldn't
> read Heinlein or LeGuin beacuse the "underlying philosphy" is wrong.
>
> -- neither Heinlein nor LeGuin advocate slavery and sexual torture, that I
> noticed.
>
> In fact, they're both agin it.
> -- S.M. Stirling
But don't you Mr.Stirling advocate the same thing by making the Draka
(with all their perversions and a slave based society) the heroes of
your little series? Please don't deny that the Draka are the heroes,
they keep winning at the end of each story and the main protaganist is
vonShrakenberg.
Time to lay your cards on the table - do you or do you not advocate or
approve of the society you created for the Draka Series?
Leon Myerson
joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
Yes, the societies most ardently practicing them seem to be among the
most social backward and technologically primitive cultures on the
planet.
Kristopher/EOS
Funny, that's actually how I pictured him. He sounds like the type
that was dominated (not sexually, necessarily) by some woman during
his formative years, or something like that.
Kristopher/EOS
Gary J. Weiner
JoatSimeon wrote:
>
> >Gary J. Weiner
>
> JN's little D/S fantasies.
>
> -- we should keep in mind, and publicly proclaim, that Norman's stuff IS
> equivalent to "The Turner Diaries" and Mein Kampf."
No, we should keep in mind that *you* think and publicly proclaim that.
The
rest of can then giggle at you behind your back.
>
> Bakka, the Toronto SF store, used to shelve the Gor books with a little sign
> next to them: "If you buy these, the staff will sneer at you."
Yes, that's reeeeeeaaal mature business behavior. So I suppose they'd
sneer at my wife if we lived in Toronto. Then we could take our
huge budget for books and spend it somewhere else.
You know, if they don't want to carry Norman's stuff, that's one thing,
but
to ridicule your paying customers tastes strikes me as
counterproductive,
to say the least.
Gary J. Weiner
JoatSimeon wrote:
>
> >Gary
>
> >I really doubt that. I hven't heard any reports of him accosting women at the
> numerous cons he has attended.
>
> -- please read what I wrote. I didn't say that Norman accosted women -- he's a
> pencil-necked little nebbish, in person -- I said that actual rapists share his
> ideas about women.
Please read what I wrote. I said that while Norman holds these "rapist
ideas", he behaves like a perfect gentlemen, while other authors, who
hold more "correct" ideas about women, have been known to, in fact
treat women poorly.
In my opinion, deeds are more important than words or ideas.
And, anyone who thinks Norman is a "pencil-necked little nebbish" has
either never met him or let his personal bias color his recollection.
John Norman is a tall, lanky man with a silver-gray hair and a hawk-like
countenance. He has both passionate voice and powerful opinions. He
may hold opinions that you disagree with, but that doesn't make him
a "nebbish".
Gary J. Weiner
So, now you're comparing Norman with Hitler? Should we invoke Godwin's
law here, or does this only follow if one of the posters is compared
to Hitler?
Anyway, you're wrong. Our friend, the little Austrian house painter,
would
have gotten nowhere if had not actively sought the political power to
carry out his ideas. You might compare him to Marx, but even that is a
big stretch.
Is it your opinion that Norman, though his poorly written bondage
fantasies,
is actively attempting to modify the political and social structure to
bring about the subjugation of women?
--
Gary J. Weiner - webm...@hatrack.net
http://www.hatrack.net
HatRack Web Design & Hosting - Hang your web with us